Viacom. Google….oh yes, users

“A shrimp brakes its back in a whales' fight”

(Korean proverb)

Howard and I were bemused by the latest development of Viacom case against Google. The news from NYT read “A federal judge has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom its records of which users watched which videos on YouTube, the Web's largest video site by far.”

For us, there is an issue here (besides Google’s carelessness in protecting users’ privacy).

The Youtube user’s data is clearly at stake in the evidence of the case of Viacom’s $1 billion copyright lawsuit against Google. However, by ordering Google to relinquish ALL users’ details (the login name and IP address) to Viacom, the judge has compromised the privacy of the genuine Youtube users who make and share (upload & download) the User Generated Content (UCC). The NYT article asserts that, “Google and Viacom said they were hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of the site's visitors.”

Surely, this should not be a matter between two commercial companies. This should have been a condition made by the judge to protect the genuine Youtube users, whose personal data does not belong to Viacom.

Why I blog

Since blogging, it has changed the way I read articles. Now, I read more carefully and critically than before. I read them from the perspective of trying to understand the ‘why’ of the author and his/her arguments. There is the perceptive instant answers to ‘why’ question that I do not need to think too much about for example, why I disagree, why the argument is logically flawed etc. However, there are articles that you read and you feel that you do not agree with the arguments, but yet you don’t know ‘why’. Writing a blog has sharpened my attention to looking at the ‘why’.

I have just watched a short clip of Seth Godin and Tom Peters on blogging. They also talk about the benefits of blogging and the advantages for improving our thinking and articulation of thinking through blogging. Which reminded me of being told by teachers and others that writing a diary is a good way of improving one’s writing skills, this was before the blogging era, and I am sure any form of writing using any medium helps to maximise one’s thinking and writing skills. However, I now argue that writing blogs in a public domain is particularly advantageous.

Why?

I think the motivation for thinking critically comes from the fact that there just might be a reader, an-other. With this comes the realization of the unknown possibility of a stranger’s eye being cast upon the points that I am making, the intellectual fear factor (the variation of panopticon effect, I suppose) challenges me to think about ‘why’ carefully.

Currently I am thinking about the whole discussion about ‘free’ as there are some ‘why’ aspects of the discussion that I am troubled by.

Customers who don’t want to pay

The article by Kevin Kelly on ‘How to get people to pay’ refers to Dan Cook’s business model for game developers and suggests the wider implications for other business sectors in digital economy. However, that is as far as it goes. Kevin Kelly wants us to figure the rest out for ourselves.

These are Dan’s categories of users.

• People who don't want to pay: Advertising is a good option to keep around. A few hundred bucks is still money in the bank.
• People who are interested in more of the same: Once you've established the value of your game, some players want more. Give them more levels, more puzzles, more enemies in exchange for cash.
• People who are interested in status or identity improvements: Some people see games as means of expression and identity. Give them items that let them express themselves or customize their experience.
• People who have limited time: Some people live busy lives and want to consume your game when they desire and how they desire. Cheat codes, experience multipliers and other systems that bypass the typical progression all help satisfying this customer need.

What Dan shows us is the conceptual change of our understanding and perception of ‘customer’ in the digital economy. In the manufacturing industry, customers are the ones who are willing to pay in exchange of goods. In the digital economy, ‘People who don’t want to pay’ are considered and should be considered as part of customer categories. One of the key aspects of Chris Anderson’s freeconomics and current discussion over News Corp's adoption of fee model for their general news is uncovering and understanding ‘People who don’t want to pay’ category, the ‘redefined customers’.

It is certainly important to identify categories of users (customers) to design appropriate revenue streams and also recognize and accept ‘People who don’t want to pay’ category as a valued customer (because virtually it does not cost anything to provide a service for them in the digital economy as Chris Anderson argues). However, as for the future of the digital economy, the holy grail is to figure out how ‘People who don’t want to pay’, pay.

Obvious? Not so fast

Rupert Murdock announced the end of free news era for News Corp. When the company is suffering from a profit loss, it is obvious for it to employ a new business model to look for an additional revenue. However, is the market ready to pay money to read a general news? Well, I am not.

My internet homepage has been set on BBC online News for well over seven, eight years now. I must seem very loyal to BBC News but the key question is, would I still read BBC News, if I have to pay for it? (this is an hypothetical question since BBC is run by TV licence fee, adopting a fee based model is unlikely) I do not have to ponder too long over this. My answer is simply, No, I would not. I would find other free online news sources.

There are two aspects that concern me.

One, their success of the subscription model is largely dependent on its ability to produce “unique, high value and well-differentiated content" in order to compete with other freely available online news and follow the likes of 'The Financial Times' and News Corp's 'Wall Street Journal'. News Corp explains that their content would be “better and differentiate it from other people". It doesn’t seem very convincing. News Corp seems to believe that they can replicate the revenue model of 'Wall Street Journal' which targets a specific market for their other general newspapers. In order to succeed in adopting a subscription model, it is paramount for newspapers to build their unique identity (differentiating characteristics) and a firm reader base whilst providing free online news.

Two, News Corp states “…I believe that if we are successful, we will be followed by other media.” It is not the followers that they need but the fellow members in order to coordinate a campaign to ‘over throw’ free professional news from internet. If all so called quality newspapers/media group decides to charge the readers for their online news content then my only option would be opening my purse. I am sceptical about their success and over the coming months, it will be very interesting to see how the seemingly obvious business venture pans out.

Are ‘Friends’ my FRIENDS?

Reading the news article, ‘Facebook criticised by Archbishop’, I wonder about our lack of faith in our understanding of relationship and friendship. To understand the implications of using social networking websites requires a longitudinal observational study. At the current time, we can only speculate what effect (good, bad or just different) it may have on community life as a whole.

What I am questioning is his usage of the word, ‘friends’ and ‘friendships’. He said, "Friendship is not a commodity” and "Friendship is something that is hard work and enduring when it's right". I completely agree with what he is saying about friendship. But are these definitions/explanations about friendship applicable to social networking based friends? Obviously our friends (those who certainly fall into Archbishop’s definitions) are also in the list of friends in the likes of Facebook. However, I would like to think that no one really consider every single listed ‘friends’ are really their friends. Some like to collect the names to add to their lists but such vanity also exists in our face to face relationship. We like to name drop especially if we know someone famous, successful and well liked. We like to give a false impression of the closeness with the person if necessary.

In a similar note, I had a bit of cultural shock when I went back to South Korea a few years ago. I noticed a change. When I spoke to a utility company, I was greeted with “Hello customer who I love, how may I help you?”. The word ‘Love’ was everywhere even the politicians were using ‘Love’ when addressing the general public. Surely, no one really thinks and believes that when the customer service talks about ‘Love’, they are talking about LOVE. We all know that collected and listed ‘friends’ in our social networking sites are not all necessarily our FRIENDS.